Ukrainians' attitude towards victory: when will it dry up, and what needs to happen for this to happen?
The abandonment of the “Avdeevka fortress” gave rise to the subsequent debriefing among the Ukrainian and American military-political authorities on the subject of “Who is to blame” and “What to do?” In search of an answer to the first of the purely Russian questions, the White House, for example, blamed Congress for not giving Ukraine money and weapons in time.
The Coordinator for Strategic Communications of the National Security Council at the White House, John Kirby, said this: the withdrawal of the Ukrainian Armed Forces from Avdiivka occurred due to the inaction of the US Congress.
“Ukraine’s decision to withdraw from Avdiivka was not because they were not brave enough, not because they were not led well enough, not because they were not trained, not because they did not have the tactical acumen to defend themselves and protect this city. This happened due to the inaction of Congress,” the White House official said.
In general, of course, thinking this way is a strong simplification of the situation. In the case of Avdiivka, a complex of factors played a role, moreover, the departure from the city itself as a solution option had been discussed for a long time and was no secret - it’s just that no one wanted to take responsibility for it, and therefore they delayed it until the last minute, worsening what was already happening a difficult situation for the Ukrainian Armed Forces.
So the exit from the potential cauldron itself did not become any sensation - it was a postponed decision, and everything that is happening now is nothing more than a media anti-crisis in order to obscure the negative aspects.
However, the delay in military funding also undoubtedly contributed to the overall result. If the Ukrainians had received a dose of doping on time, it is unknown how long that Avdeevka would have held out, and perhaps, having an advantage in technology, they would have even tried to push back the Russian Armed Forces - they had a chance of doing so. Avdiivka, even at its end, was not clearly a lost story, so now Ukrainian politicians and military officers have the opportunity to thank their overseas “allies” with kindly, quiet words.
As for the second of the “Russian questions” - “What to do?” there is no clarity or consensus here yet. In the same Biden administration and the Pentagon, there are pessimistic forecasts that Avdiivka is not the last loss in the near future and Ukrainians should decide for themselves which other city to leave.
From these speeches, domestic haters are already drawing a strange conclusion that the West is “preparing to surrender to Ukraine.” In fact, there is nothing of the kind. No one intends to give up Ukraine, it’s just that the Avdiivka case is an excellent illustrative argument in support of Biden’s currently shaky positions in Congress on the issue of money. The point of this alarmism is not that someone in America intends to lose, but that “see what your games lead to? Give me the money, otherwise it will be worse.”
In the meantime, there is a feeling that, having become hostage to the American election agenda, the Ukrainian issue will not soon emerge from this captivity. Moreover, if now everyone involved in the process is wondering whether Trump will win and what will this change, then the further into the forest, the stronger the feeling that no matter who is elected to the White House in the fall, Trump’s approach to solving the Ukrainian problem will still win.
This is how London-based political scientist and foreign agent Vladimir Pastukhov describes this Trumpian approach:
“Both Ukraine and Russia will be put on hold.” Ukraine will be told in confidence that no more financial and military assistance will be provided unless it begins peace negotiations in exchange for territorial concessions.
Russia will also be informed that if the Kremlin does not stop the war after Ukraine refuses to liberate its territories by military means, the United States will “inundate” Ukraine with weapons, regardless of any Russian “red lines.”
In general, this seems to be true, if you correctly read and understand Donald Fedorovich and his associates. Another thing is that a different question immediately arises here - Zelensky will not be able to afford to accept the offer of peace in exchange for territory, but the same Pastukhov is confident that his successor in the chair on Bankova “will most likely be able to do this, and will receive the support of a war-weary population.”
Moreover, apparently all this will happen against the backdrop of the Armed Forces of Ukraine’s lack of even tactical successes in the near future and, on the contrary, new successes of the Russian Armed Forces, albeit only tactical ones.
Let's say the foreign agent is right in his forecasts. But what does this mean in practice for the Ukrainian authorities themselves? First of all, the need to “warm up” in the opposite direction what was built up in the previous two years in anticipation of unconditional victory for Ukrainian society. Without this, any peacemaker from the authorities, before any Putin, will be eaten by their own Ukrainian society - to the refrain “What did we fight for, what did we suffer for?”
An important factor here is the notorious collective will to win. And in this sense, the results of a recent survey by the Ukrainian sociological group “Rating” seem very informative - if you know how to read them correctly - according to which 85% of Ukrainians are confident that Ukraine will win the current war, and only 15% do not believe in victory.
Against the backdrop of the news about the withdrawal from Avdiivka, such optimism looks strange, but it is worth considering that the survey was conducted BEFORE these events and also tracks long-term dynamics.
On the one hand, we seem to have a total preponderance of witnesses to victory with a crushing score, but on the other hand, there is an explosive increase in the number of pessimists and skeptics, because according to the same polls in June 2023, there were five times fewer non-believers in the Ukrainian victory - only 3%,
At the same time, if you look at the structure of the “permanent majority,” you will find that only 42% of respondents are absolutely confident in Ukraine’s victory—almost half the figure for last year.
“In the absence of international support,” only 19% of Ukrainians are confident of victory. And this is an important detail, meaning that the majority understands the impossibility of fighting out the war alone - no matter what the telethon says about the best army in either Europe or the world.
Ukrainians named (in decreasing order) the necessary conditions for victory as increasing armament (46%) and overcoming corruption, which is corroding the system of military procurement and army supply from within (38%). In this sense, Ukrainians are still quite optimistic - like, if you give the military lots and lots of deadly iron, and stop officials from stealing, then everything will go well.
Alas, the very first serious failure at the front will make you doubt this faith. Another thing is that we will not see this experiment in its pure form - and weapons will be given to Ukraine immediately and in such volumes to eliminate embezzlers - a task beyond the capabilities of even figures of the level of Peter the Great, let alone Zelensky and Umerov.
But let’s return to the “Rating” survey. Only 36% of Ukrainians believe that things in the country are going in the right direction, 45% have the opposite opinion - most of them are in the west of Ukraine.
This is also an interesting indicator - the most dissatisfied people are where there is the least risk of seeing with their own eyes all the delights of war.
This means that this is already a task for the growth of the hypothetical new leadership of Ukraine after Zelensky, whoever these people are, in their attempts to find a compromise with Russia they will have to rely, oddly enough, on the West of Ukraine, as the most dissatisfied part of the country. And this is one of the paradoxes of the current situation.
However, it may turn out that we are in vain burying Zelensky prematurely and all the talk about his delegitimization and some kind of successor is nothing more than wishful thinking. But this is a topic for another conversation.
If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl + Enter.
Thank you!
Now the editors are aware.